Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[jmcrae]

The key here is you’re saying “I don’t honestly think” with regard to intention. And yet in your other post you spoke with great certitude that they lack orders and validity. GKC is more adept in this area than yours truly but intention is something you and I sitting here cannot ascertain.

With a bit of data, I’m thinking we could.

For example, are the Anglican clergy who are ordained by the Polish Catholics considered to be valid clergy (without re-ordination, and without conversion) for Polish National Catholic Masses? Can they freely exchange clergy between themselves? If they can, then you’re right - their ordination has whatever Apostolic Succession the PNC may have.

However, if the Polish Catholics perceive a difference, such that they wouldn’t normally send one of their priests to an Anglican Church, or if they wouldn’t ordinarily put an Anglican on their own pay roll, then, when they ordain Anglicans, does the intent actually exist, to ordain a priest into their own lineage? Or are they just doing it for appearances sake, but would never actually hire an Anglican priest for their own parishes?

Anglo-Catholics hold a very very sacrificial, historical view of the Mass. Heck, many broad church priests in the Anglican communion do as well.

Then it puzzles me, why don’t they just take that last step into the House of God, the Church? After all, their fellow Anglicans think they’re the same as Catholics, anyway.

So I think if we’re in the assumption game, as it seems we are today, I’d say that most of them and at a bare minimum many of them have valid orders. And keep in mind that we don’t want to enter into the Donatist heresy here either.

I don’t think the Donatist heresy enters into it - the Donatists were worried about the priest’s personal sins - my concern is not his sins, but his Church membership. Surely it is a basic principle that one ordains clergy into one’s own Church; not someone else’s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Anyway, I wonder why nobody responded to my comment:

Open communion is an oxymoron

Thoughts? Reactions?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Anyway, I wonder why nobody responded to my comment:

Open communion is an oxymoron

Thoughts? Reactions?

How so?

 

[gmcbroom]

I as a Maronite Catholic think I understand why we have closed communion, after all its an oath to the death we make when we accept the eucharist… the particulars if you will. However I’ve always been curious about what Jesus said after he spoke with the Centurion. He said that ALL are welcome at his father’s table; jew and pagan alike. Wouldn’t this mean the communion should be open? Just curious.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How so?

Even by merely going through the definitions, communion means being united in one mind and one faith. So by definition, “open communion” is an oxymoron because how can you open up communion to non-believers when communion itself means being of one mind and one faith?

 

[jmcrae]

I as a Maronite Catholic think I understand why we have closed communion, after all its an oath to the death we make when we accept the eucharist… the particulars if you will. However I’ve always been curious about what Jesus said after he spoke with the Centurion. He said that ALL are welcome at his father’s table; jew and pagan alike. Wouldn’t this mean the communion should be open? Just curious.

No; it means that anyone - Jew, Gentile, Greek, whatever - can become a Catholic, and partake of Christ’s table as a full member of His Church - not merely as a visitor or a stranger.

 

[Carlan]

Anyway, I wonder why nobody responded to my comment:

Open communion is an oxymoron

Thoughts? Reactions?

So it is good enough for those who only believe it a symbol of what Jesus did for us and at the same time deny that at the last supper he left us with the promise of His Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity to be with us always in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The on going Truth of Him being with us always in the Holy Eucharist,The blessed Sacrament. Peace, Carlan

 

[ConstantineTG]

So it is good enough for those who only believe it a symbol of what Jesus did for us and at the same time deny that at the last supper he left us with the promise of His Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity to be with us always in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The on going Truth of Him being with us always in the Holy Eucharist,The blessed Sacrament. Peace, Carlan

Even as a symbolic gesture, the fact that it is called “communion” alludes to professing the same faith of the church you receive from. If I go to a protestant service and I fully know well that they do not have a Valid Eucharist, its still wrong for me to receive. The fact that we commune with them means we by our actions show that we accept what they teach and what they beleive. It then becomes a lie to them, to ourselves, our Church and our faith.

That is why “open” and “communion” are really contradictory terms. Because “open” means no limitations, and “communion” means people of the same mind, in this case the faith.

 

[Carlan]

Even as a symbolic gesture, the fact that it is called “communion” alludes to professing the same faith of the church you receive from. If I go to a protestant service and I fully know well that they do not have a Valid Eucharist, its still wrong for me to receive. The fact that we commune with them means we by our actions show that we accept what they teach and what they beleive. It then becomes a lie to them, to ourselves, our Church and our faith.

That is why “open” and “communion” are really contradictory terms. Because “open” means no limitations, and “communion” means people of the same mind, in this case the faith.

Yes, thanks Constantine, I get it. We pray! God bless with understanding! Peace, Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well intercommunion and recognition of orders does exist between them, yes. And you’re seeing dialogue between the ACNA Anglicans and LCMS Lutherans even regarding sharing communion. I find that the oddest of all.

Regarding the question as to why don’t Anglicans who are of the Anglo-Catholic side of the equation just jump ship to Rome because they’re ‘catholic anyway’ I would say there have been several things to consider. Anglo-Catholics don’t always recognize the pope’s authority, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction, etc. Many reject purgatory, indulgences, and other Roman ideas. They consider Anglo-Catholicism and papism two different things. One might as well ask the same of the Orthodox? Who don’t they go Roman?

But I’d also point out that a lot of Forward in Faith Anglo-Catholics have jumped ship. And as ACNA in the U.S. becomes more evangelical (which it is!) and embraced women’s ordination, you’ll see more Anglo-Catholics parachuting to the Vatican.

With a bit of data, I’m thinking we could.

For example, are the Anglican clergy who are ordained by the Polish Catholics considered to be valid clergy (without re-ordination, and without conversion) for Polish National Catholic Masses? Can they freely exchange clergy between themselves? If they can, then you’re right - their ordination has whatever Apostolic Succession the PNC may have.

However, if the Polish Catholics perceive a difference, such that they wouldn’t normally send one of their priests to an Anglican Church, or if they wouldn’t ordinarily put an Anglican on their own pay roll, then, when they ordain Anglicans, does the intent actually exist, to ordain a priest into their own lineage? Or are they just doing it for appearances sake, but would never actually hire an Anglican priest for their own parishes?

Then it puzzles me, why don’t they just take that last step into the House of God, the Church? After all, their fellow Anglicans think they’re the same as Catholics, anyway.

I don’t think the Donatist heresy enters into it - the Donatists were worried about the priest’s personal sins - my concern is not his sins, but his Church membership. Surely it is a basic principle that one ordains clergy into one’s own Church; not someone else’s.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have always respected the Closed Communion of the Catholic Church, even when I left several times for Anglicanism. The Eucharist is not only the Body and Blood of Christ consisting of his Soul, Divinity, and full being, but it’s the ultimate sign of unity of mind, theology, purpose, and catechesis. To take communion in a Catholic Church and not be willing to respect the Catholic Church’s theology and morality is wrong. When I was out of sorts with the Church, I wouldn’t dare to step up there, period. Closed communion preserves the dignity of unity and cohesion of the faithful as well as the proper caution the Church should take to make sure the communicant believes in what is present there.

The Orthodox and Lutherans of LCMS and WELS also practice closed communion.

Anyway, I wonder why nobody responded to my comment:

Open communion is an oxymoron

Thoughts? Reactions?

 

[JohnnyReb]

I asked for an explaination and you gave that. I have not read this entire discussion so if you used this example previously, I didn’t see it. What tradition is your wife apart of? The Catholic church ties doctrinal unity to receiving the Eucharist, so from their point of view, it would be odd. I guess I want to know what makes that view correct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Johnny. I would say that closed communion is historical really and open communion is very ahistorical. The Early Church required the catechuman to LEAVE when the liturgy of the Eucharist kicked in. It was considered a divine mystery and the Church tried to ensure the person was properly catechized and understood the faith before being permitted to enter into this phase of the Mass. That in itself always left an impression on me that doctrinal unity and proper understanding and unity was key in the Eucharistic meal.

Also, remember in the early centuries the Church was united so having a Presbyterian or Lutheran or Baptist drop by the catecombs wasn’t a big worry Open Communion wasn’t even thought of as unity existed at the time. But to make sure the newbie, the neophyte, was properly prepared, they weren’t allowed to take part in that most sacred part of the Divine Worship.

The Didache says that no one but a dully baptized believer may enter into Eucharistic fellowship. I would say that obviously to apply that to modernity one would say not just being baptized is enough but to understand the faith. One’s baptism was part of a faith experience. And they all had the same catholic understanding of the Christian life in their baptism in those times. The Didache also says, “Assemble on the Lord’s day and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confessions of your faults so that your sacrifice may be a pure one.” While this is about sacrifice and confession, this admonition to go to confess one’s sins first before taking Communion shows a commitment to be in a properly disposed state of mind to understand the gravity of communion.

The Didache also talks about sojourning Christians. Visitors are to be made to feel welcome BUT should be tested, it says, to make sure they are what they say they are, properly disposed to the truth of Christ’s teachings, before taking communion.

So the Early Church seems consistent with modern Catholic and Orthodox thinking on this, IMO.

When I was Anglican for years, I was always scratching my head as everyone from Unitarians (!!!) to non-denoms to former Calvinists who denied the real presence and weren’t totally in line with the Anglican Church would march on up for communion. I had a Unitarian guy tell me his beliefs that all “gods” were God and he would trash Anglican theology, yet he’d take communion. Our priest knew his views, he still could come up. That’s pretty much true in most Anglican circles and especially Episcopalian ones. So Catholic thinking is far more logical here in this area to me.

I asked for an explaination and you gave that. I have not read this entire discussion so if you used this example previously, I didn’t see it. What tradition is your wife apart of? The Catholic church ties doctrinal unity to receiving the Eucharist, so from their point of view, it would be odd. I guess I want to know what makes that view correct.

 

[1beleevr]

Elaborate please 1beleevr

There was no pomp or circumstance in the Upper Room that night! 12 men, united as One, communing, and the pope was not there, as one other poster said! The pope hadn’t been assigned yet; this was prepentecostal! The eucharist is probably nice and all, but not the ONLY wayto do Communion!

 

[1beleevr]

Of course they were Catholic. They had the Pope at the Last Supper. Maybe you’re right, Judas was the first protestant because he didn’t fully believe in everything Jesus taught, like many today.

Yhis is just about the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever read! These disciples were neither catholic or Protestant,you can’t prove it one way or another. Judas was one of 12 disciples, who just happened to be the one chosen to betray Christ; it was all prophesied! To call him a Protestant or a catholic, Mormon, or Baptist is ludicrous! He was part of the plan!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And there were no giant Baptist/Assembly of God-style TV screens, microphones, men in white suits with too much TBN hairspray, no New Testament, no many things, right? Pomp isn’t the point. The theology is. If you read the Early Fathers, the didache, and the Bible holistically you’ll see no grey area. The Eucharist was and is the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. There wasn’t a multiplicity of approaches to the Eucharist. Within a short generation we see ALL of the Churches liturgically-based, altars, priesthood, uniformity. That wasn’t by accident IMO. The Eucharist is not just “nice and all,” 1beleevr, come on now…And I was wondering why you say the Pope was not there? Peter was sitting at that table to my recollection Peter was given the primacy and the leadership role at Matthew 16:18 but the charism of the Holy Spirit to protect his leadership wasn’t there until Pentecost. Jesus instituted the Sacrament at the Last Supper and the pope wasn’t necessary to institute it. Jesus instituted baptism and marriage as sacraments pre-petrine as well but that doesn’t prove those are not sacraments? The sacraments and Church developed in stages with Our Lord, not in one poof.

There was no pomp or circumstance in the Upper Room that night! 12 men, united as One, communing, and the pope was not there, as one other poster said! The pope hadn’t been assigned yet; this was prepentecostal! The eucharist is probably nice and all, but not the ONLY wayto do Communion!

 

[ajatkinson]

Incorrect.
In the early Church, RCIA lasted for three years; not six months. It has been recently restored, but it certainly was how the Early Christians welcomed new converts. There has always been a Catechumenate.

Friend I use the term “Early Church” to refer to those first Christians in Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

Back then, it was truly THE catholic (universal) church. There was only one church (as there still is technically today, but it spans numerous denominations despite some peoples’ claims). The sad fact is there is no longer a unified body of Christ anymore. Certainly, the Roman Catholics have the largest following, but to say they are THE unified body of Christ alone is to deny salvation to all outside the Holy See (certianly, some wild cult-like groups may be outside of salvation, but the Lord will deal with them as he sees fit)

 

[ajatkinson]

It was not the Catholic Church who made it so that the Protestants are not under her authority - it was the Protestants themselves who originally created and wanted this situation.

Actually it WAS the RCC who began this tradition, for Lutherans never wanted to break free from the RCC, but wanted an end to the antics of Johann Tetzel and indulgence selling for the construction of Saint Peter’s basilica. Yet, I have found that even Lutherans are excluded from Eucharist during Mass. It was the Leo X who wanted Luther excommunicated and stifled even though many of the church leaders agreed with his doctrine.

…the Church simply no longer has any authority over these people, including the authority to give them any of the seven Sacraments, including Holy Communion.

The only way to give a Catholic priest the authority to give you Holy Communion is to return to full and visible membership in the Catholic Church.

They have no authority because the leaders of the Church doesn’t grant the authority to the priests! Why? Xenophobia maybe? Fear of fellowship with other true believers? The fact is, the Vatican could say tomorrow that the Lord’s Table be open to all true believers, but then, who would join the Catholic Church any more? I sure wouldn’t take a course for six months to a year+ if I were already able to take communion. It is NOT doctrine, it’s a business model. Were there no RCIA for those already baptized who understand the Church’s doctrine, I’d probably become Catholic a tomorrow.

So in essence, there is no closed communion on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church towards members of outside denominations seeking to take Eucharist, only they must become converted to Catholicism before doing so. Hmmm

Look, I am NOT saying open your communion table to Jehovah’s Witnesses, I am just saying it would be a good show of faith to allow the Eucharist to be between Christ and the believer and trust that before receiving the Body and Blood, he/she has prayerfully examined himself and acted according to the direction of the spirit.

 

[ajatkinson]

Hi

So our dear friend Ajatkinson is very likely to find “a home”. As all of the above are (in various degrees) quite “Catholic” (although not all of them have Apostolic Succesion; but for me that wouldn’t be a problem at all).

Even the thing with the Marian dogma is not in that extant “a problem” if you don’t believe it in the “New Catholic Churches” (I have imagined that name, isn’t it nice? )
Esdra

Well I am a Methodist by membership, Anglican in beliefs. I was raised Baptist, my father is a pastor and his father and three brothers are deacons. Fun stuff.

Anyhow, I would probably be Episcopalian I might imagine if it weren’t for such tomfoolery as to ordain homosexual clergy. Appalling. I wish there were more “High Church” Methodist Churches out there. Allot of protestants fear being too formal as being “too Catholic” which I think is bologna.

 

[ajatkinson]

I have always respected the Closed Communion of the Catholic Church, even when I left several times for Anglicanism. The Eucharist is not only the Body and Blood of Christ consisting of his Soul, Divinity, and full being, but it’s the ultimate sign of unity of mind, theology, purpose, and catechesis. To take communion in a Catholic Church and not be willing to respect the Catholic Church’s theology and morality is wrong. When I was out of sorts with the Church, I wouldn’t dare to step up there, period. Closed communion preserves the dignity of unity and cohesion of the faithful as well as the proper caution the Church should take to make sure the communicant believes in what is present there.

The Orthodox and Lutherans of LCMS and WELS also practice closed communion.

(Please read this entire post)
The Eucharist is the ultimate sign of the anguish Christ experienced in his sacrifice, his saving grace through faith in his sacrifice, and the partaker’s willingness to except the sacrifice for propitiation of his/her sins as a believer.

Since when does Holy Communion go from signifying the perfect sacrifice of our Lord and Savior’s earthly body, to showing unity/disunity of doctrine and dogma and using it as an instrument to exclude those whose only theological difference may well be papal authority? That seems to me to be using the gift of salvation and the ritual of Eucharist to divide Christendom in a time when we should be doing things to unify the true universal church. Having cross-denomination dialogues once a year will hardly make a difference either. Someone needs to take a leap of faith in knocking down a wall. I fervently belief things like this displease Christ.

I agree like I said, that many schools of though in the faith do embrace closed communions. It’s a sad fact that they use the Holy Table which should be open to all true Christians, to be an instrument of dissonance and division, and here is why I feel this is the truth:

The Church does realize those baptized from other faiths to be true believers, and Christians. In fact in scripture, the only thing that should deter a partaker from communion is being unworthy or being in a state of sin. Surely if a person from another denomination is considered saved by the Church, then it is before they have had a confession in the Catholic rite and been catechized. To say they need to first join the Church and have a confession is to say those outside Catholicism are not, and cannot be saved, which is an issue that was understood to be false by most people ever since Luther pointed out that at the time, there were those in Greek Orthodoxy who were Christians but considered outside the Church and therefore outside salvation which was ludicrous.

Surely Peter and Paul shared communion together despite their large theological differences, for if they didn’t I’m quite certain it would have been noted in scripture, and one of the apostles would have cited the event as an example other believers should follow as to worshiping with those with differing beliefs, however we do not see this demonstrated in any of the epistles.

All that said, I have Catholic friends and although not Catholic myself, I sympathize with many of the Church’s stances and teachings and will always defend the RCC when I am able to do so, as I do with other denominations that proclaim the word of God.